Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Splenda sweetener downgraded from "safe" to "caution".


Big A

Recommended Posts

Here are two articles about it, definitely not something you should be using, it was being developed originally as a pesticide!

Think twice before dumping that Splenda into your coffee…

The safety rating of the little yellow packet has gone from “safe” to “caution.” But it wasn’t the FDA who finally spoke up. Another agency has stepped in.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) downgraded Splenda’s safety rating because of a new discovery. We’re shocked that it took a “new discovery” to sound the alarms. But it’s better than nothing.

The Food and Drug Administration approved Splenda–sucralose—in 1998. Since then, it’s come under a ton of scrutiny. And for good reason.

Manufacturers created Splenda because everyone finally realized that other artificial sweeteners are dangerous. But what was the point? Splenda actually has more of a toxic chemical—chlorine—than even aspartame.1 Yet aspartame has an “avoid” rating.2

Another quote:

Gross but true… Sucralose (Splenda) was actually discovered by researchers while trying to create a new insecticide. You will find Splenda in numerous consumer products. Make sure to check labels for sucralose. Not to be confused with sucrose, actual table sugar. Products that include Splenda are some Arizona Iced teas, some diet sodas, Diet V8 Splash, Gatorade, Ocean Spray juices, Tropicana juices, and even Breyers ice cream.

http://institutefornaturalhealing.com/2013/06/splenda-the-little-packet-of-death/

Here is from another article:

Splenda is not as harmless as McNeil wants you to believe. A mixture of sucralose, maltodextrine and dextrose (a detrimental simple sugar), each of the not-so-splendid Splenda ingredients has downfalls. Aside from the fact that it really isn’t “sugar and calorie free,” here is one big reason to avoid the deceitful mix…Think April fools day:

Splenda contains a potential poison

Splenda contains the drug sucralose. This chemical is 600 times sweeter than sugar. To make sucralose, chlorine is used. Chlorine has a split personality. It can be harmless or it can be life threatening.

In combo with sodium, chlorine forms a harmless “ionic bond” to yield table salt. Sucralose makers often highlight this worthless fact to defend its’ safety. Apparently, they missed the second day of Chemistry 101 – the day they teach “covalent” bonds.

When used with carbon, the chlorine atom in sucralose forms a “covalent” bond. The end result is the historically deadly “organochlorine” or simply: a Really-Nasty Form of Chlorine (RNFOC).

Unlike ionic bonds, covalently bound chlorine atoms are a big no-no for the human body. They yield insecticides, pesticides, and herbicides – not something you want in the lunch box of your precious child. It’s therefore no surprise that the originators of sucralose, chemists Hough and Phadnis, were attempting to design new insecticides when they discovered it! It wasn’t until the young Phadnis accidentally tasted his new “insecticide” that he learned it was sweet. And because sugars are more profitable than insecticides, the whole insecticide idea got canned and a new sweetener called Splenda got packaged.

To hide its dirty origin, Splenda pushers assert that sucralose is “made from sugar so it tastes like sugar.” Sucralose is as close to sugar as Windex is to ocean water.

http://thepeopleschemist.com/splenda-the-artificial-sweetener-that-explodes-internally/

That last line of above quote is epic, Splenda to sugar as winded is to ocean water, lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Spider Monkey

No more Gatorade?

Unless you drink purified water and only eat organic foods you grow yourself, pretty much everything else seems to be hazardous to your health.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank God. Now maybe they'll stop putting it in so much stuff I like. I had it once and it tore my insides up. That crap is poison. I can't believe they've been putting it in so many children's foods and advertising it as safe for kids. They'll probably all be sterile and have cancer before they turn 25.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some insight into this group.

 

 

The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) has been monitoring the activities of The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). After a lengthy investigation of CSPI's activities, we have come to some very grave conclusions about this group, which is regularly trusted by Americans as a source of information about food safety. Our findings reveal that CSPI is knowingly engaging in deceptive practices as they attempt to persuade the public and the media that their food safety scares are legitimate.

http://healthfactsandfears.net/healthissues/newsID.542/healthissue_detail.asp

 

The Center for Science in the Public Interest isn't a science organization but a special interest advocacy group for public policy. Although it assumes the mantle of science in order to obtain legitimacy for its activities and programs, most of the CSPI's "science" hardly reaches the level of a high school science project.

 

"CSPI is knowingly engaging in deceptive practices as they attempt to persuade the public and the media"

http://www.alcoholfacts.org/MichaelJacobson.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stevia I've heard is the shiz as far as sweeteners go. Gotta do some research though.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using CarolinaHuddle mobile app

Pretty much what I've been reading, stevia seems to be one of the safest from most of what I read. I know rodeo pointed to some concerns over the credibility of many claims by CSPI, but the science behind why sucralose is bad for you is very sound and a quick internet search will reveal endless sources all saying the same thing. Aspartame is on the avoid list and sucralose is much worse and seems to be some lobbying behind it getting a pass.

Here is a list of 3 worst and 4 best sweeteners, stevia and using honey top the list

http://www.rodale.com/sweeteners

Personally I use stevia and xylitol. Xylitol is from the sugar alcohol group and seems to be pretty safe, but I did find that like many of the other sweeteners, any use other than low amounts can have some side effects, then again for xylitol it was stuff like diarrhea while aspartame was cancer like lymphoma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • lol, that second part is quite literally one of the dumbest things ever. Having or not having guaranteed contracts has absolutely nothing to do with how much these billionaires have to pay.  Because there is a hard cap and a minimum cap spend requirement, and teams either use their cap or roll it over to use it all the next year, so the owners have to pay the same amount of money in the end no matter what. Having fully guaranteed contracts in the NFL would only hurt salary cap management, and thus would end up screwing over the team and its fan base when teams kiss on signings as they take up cap room that is needed to improve the roster. Look at the Browns with Watson, they gave him the fully guaranteed deal and all it’s doing is sucking up massive cap space now.  If they hadn’t done that, the owner would still be paying the same amount of money each year as that cap space would still be used elsewhere. If you want to argue for fully guaranteed contracts because the players deserve it, that’s an entirely different argument and a fair one to discuss.  But anyone against fully guaranteed deals isn’t doing it to argue for the billionaire owners.
    • Start posting in threads in the other forums instead of just creating threads. No one comes over here so you aren't starting conversations.  Get your ass up to 100 posts. It's not that hard. Don't create 100 posts. Contribute to conversations. 
    • Ryabkin could be the steal of the draft, he was a Top 10 pick heading into last season and had a rough year.  Lots of GMs passed on him because of that and his workouts. Pick has really high upside and Svech should be able to translate Rod tearing his arse a new one for making dumb plays since Svech has had several years of it.  🤣😂
×
×
  • Create New...